NDTV Explains: Donald Trump Went Plane-Shopping, Got A $200 Million "Gift"
A Qatari official told CNN the plane would be a 'gift to the Pentagon', a 'government-to-government transaction' that will then be 'donated' to Trump's presidential library.
Donald Trump wanted to buy a "most impressive plane" to replace the two aging Boeing 747-200 jets that serve as Air Force One, the President of the United States' personal aircraft.
But Trump, more conscious than most about how crafting public narratives underscoring American might, was also unhappy, even irked. Because the planes he had ordered from Boeing for US$ 3.9 billion in 2018, in his first term, would not be ready before 2027 at least.
Advertisement - Scroll to continue
This was unacceptable. "We are the United States of America... we should have the most impressive plane," he declared in West Asia in May 2025, acutely aware the one in use now "is much smaller" than the flashy new jets used by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab emirates.
Qatar wanted to sell a 'flying palace' valued at around US$200 million - with uber-luxurious interiors designed by a Parisian firm, including custom-made rugs from Hong Kong and artwork by American artist Alexander Calder, whose 'Poisson volant' sold for US$30 million in 2014.
The double-decker 747-800 also has a bathroom that is "almost a work of art".
Supply met demand in February; the Qatari government agreed to spend nearly a million dollars to fly the plane non-stop to Trump, then at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, for a look-see.
'Palace in the sky' at Mar-a-Lago
Trump, American publications reported of the plane viewing, was impressed. Sources told CNN he boasted about the opulent fittings, and seemed almost to believe the plane was already his.
He even had a colour scheme picked out - red, white, and blue.
Money, of course, was unlikely to ever be an obstacle. Trump would likely have welcomed a fat price tag to go with his new plane, because that would underline America's financial might.
But Air Force One, the President's 'office in the sky', is built to some of the world's most exacting safety and security standards. The legend goes it can keep occupants safe from nuclear radiation and has state-of-the-art countermeasures to protect against missiles.
And it can stay in the air almost indefinitely.
Buying the luxurious Qatari jet would mean the US Air Force had to literally take the plane apart, strip it down to its nuts and bolts, to ensure there were no electronic bugs or software that could compromise the President's safety, as well as ensure physical integrity.
After all, the US can't trust Qatar with POTUS' life, can it?
"If we had built the plane... knowing it was going to a foreign government... we would probably have bugged it," Thad Troy, an ex-CIA officer serving in Cold War-era Moscow, told Bloomberg.
All this, The New York Times and CNN reported, could mean Trump still would not have a new plane to fly in; retrofitting the Qatari plane to meet those standards could take two years.
As a consequence, there were also concerns over the cost of the deal, particularly since the US government had already signed the nearly US$4 billion deal with Boeing.
Retrofitting the Qatari jet could cost millions more, hardly an ideal state of affairs for a President who was elected on the back of promises to slash government costs and streamline operations.
And then came the twist.
According to the Times, back-channel talks to close this deal had been going on for weeks, led by Trump's Middle East envoy, Steven Witkoff, who had close connections to the Qatari royal family that helped him out when a New York real estate deal went sour.
In fact, it appears Witkoff reached out to Qatar to ask about the plane, one of a set of two custom-made aircrafts. The first had been gifted to Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
The Qataris were delighted with the prospect of the sale.
In fact, sources said they had always only expected to sell the plane, not give it away.
All signs now pointed to the US buying the plane off Qatar.
And then Trump completely changed the narrative on May 11, when he said on Truth Social the Qataris would be giving up the multi-million dollar luxury jet for as a donation to the US.
'A GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE'
Trump also claimed it was, in fact, the Qatari royal family that offered the 'gift'.
In Trump's hardcore business world a 'free' deal is always a good thing. He underlined that point on Truth Social, declaring, "Why should our military, and therefore our taxpayers, be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars when they can get it for FREE from (another) country..."
And this would be a "very public and transparent transaction", Trump said on Truth Social as the White House insisted the deal will comply with all required legal and ethical obligations.
Qatar has not responded to that claim, except to say that if the offer of the jet to Trump is deemed 'illegal' by the US it would be withdrawn. Qatar Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed Al Thani told CNN it would be an 'impersonal transaction... whether on the US or Qatari side'.
A Qatari official told CNN the plane would be a 'gift from the Ministry of Defence to the Pentagon', a 'government-to-government transaction' that will eventually then be 'donated' to Trump's presidential library, allowing him to continue to use it after he leaves office.
But why would Qatar 'gift' the plane?
What the Qatari side actually feels about this - about the potential sale of a US$200 million jet being bulldozed into a 'government-to-government gift' is anybody's guess.
They have pointed to a strong relationship to downplay the 'FREE' transfer, but the truth is also that the Qatari government has just agreed a trillion-dollar broad trade economic with the US.
This includes a US$96 billion-deal to buy Boeing 787 Dreamliner and 777X aircraft, although just when the struggling American aviation giant will clear an ever-growing backlog and get to the Qatari order is unclear.
Qatar's reaction aside, Democrats and even some Republicans are distinctly unhappy, worrying as much about the propriety of the American President receiving a 'gift' of such value as the possibility it would translate to Qatari interference in US affairs, whether at home or abroad.
"Nothing says 'America First' like Air Force One, brought to you by Qatar," the Dems' Chuck Schumer wrote on X, "It's not just bribery, it's premium foreign influence with extra legroom."
So, does Trump have a new plane?
Well, no. Not yet.
Pentagon sources told multiple American publications, including CNN, that US and Qatari lawyers are still figuring out how to make it okay for the President of one country to receive a multi-million gift from a foreign power, and then continue using said gift after his term ends.
The groundwork, though, has been laid.
Sources told ABC News, which first reported the story, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth had concluded, based on legal advice, it is 'legal for the Department of Defense to accept the gift and later turn it over to the Trump library', and that it does not violate the Constitution.
Sign up to read this article FREE!
Exclusive Stories:
Dive into content reserved just for members.
Fewer Ads:
A cleaner, more enjoyable reading experience.
Enhanced Interface:
Tailored just for you.
Join Now – It's Free!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
12 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Judge blocks private prison operator from housing ICE detainees at shuttered Kansas center
LEAVENWORTH, Kan. — A judge on Wednesday barred a major U.S. private prison operator from housing immigrants facing possible deportation in a shuttered Kansas City area detention center unless it can get a permit from frustrated city officials. Leavenworth County Judge John Bryant agreed after a packed hearing to grant the city of Leavenworth's request for a temporary restraining order against CoreCivic, one of the nation's largest private prison operators. CoreCivic had claimed in legal filings that halting the opening of the 1,033-bed facility on the northwest outskirts of the Kansas City area would cost it $4.2 million in revenue each month. City officials said they anticipated the arrival of detainees apprehended by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was imminent under a Trump administration crackdown on illegal immigration. Leavenworth isn't the first city where controversy has surrounded the reopening of a private prison as an ICE detention facility. In Newark, New Jersey, Mayor Ras Baraka sued the state's top federal prosecutor on Tuesday over his recent arrest on a trespassing charge at a federal immigration detention facility in that state, saying the Trump-appointed attorney had pursued the case out of political spite. Scott Peterson, the city manager for Leavenworth, said he didn't know if the case in Kansas marked the first time a municipality had prevailed in court. 'I would point out that maybe the reason we have seen some success here today is this is not about immigration,' Peterson said. 'This is not about private prisons. This is about land use.' In late 2021, CoreCivic stopped housing pretrial detainees for the U.S. Marshals Service in the Leavenworth facility after then-President Joe Biden called on the Justice Department to curb the use of private prisons. In the months leading up to the closure, the American Civil Liberties Union and federal public defenders urged the White House to speed up the closure, citing inmate rights violations there along with stabbings, suicides and even one homicide. But with President Donald Trump pushing for mass deportations under a wide-ranging crackdown on illegal immigration, the facility that CoreCivic now calls the Midwest Regional Reception Center is in demand again. It is located just 10 miles west of the Kansas City International Airport. As part of his crackdown, Trump has vowed to sharply increase detention beds nationwide from the budgeted 41,000 beds this year. Tennessee-based CoreCivic initially applied for a special use permit from the city in February but then withdrew that application the next month, arguing in court filings that it didn't need the permit and that the process would take too long. 'It became clear to CoreCivic that there was not a cooperative relationship,' said Taylor Concannon Hausmann, an attorney for the private prison operator, speaking in court. The city sued CoreCivic, the lawsuit claiming that CoreCivic impeded the city police force's ability to investigate sexual assaults and other violent crimes. The lawsuit contended that the permitting process was needed to safeguard itself from future problems. 'Just follow our rules," an attorney for the city, Joe Hatley, said in court. 'Go get a permit.' The first version of the lawsuit, filed in March in federal court, was tossed out in May on technical grounds. But Bryant sided with Hatley in the case refiled the same month in state court, finding that the proper procedures weren't followed. Concannon Hausmann, CoreCivic's attorney, declined to comment as the crowd filtered out of the courtroom Wednesday. Norman Mallicoat held a sign reading, 'CoreCivic Doesn't Run Leavenworth' as he left. 'I see this as basically a large company trying to bully a small city into getting what it wants and not having to follow the rules and ordinances of the city,' Mallicoat said.
Mint
17 minutes ago
- Mint
Columbia University's accreditation under threat says Trump Admin amid allegations of ignoring Jewish students
The US Department of Education announced on June 4 that Columbia University violated federal anti-discrimination laws, failing to protect Jewish students amid pro-Palestinian protests on campus. The department said this breach places Columbia in violation of the standards required by its accrediting agency, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Education Secretary Linda McMahon issued a strong statement, saying, 'The school's leadership acted with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students on its campus' following the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel. The Department formally notified the Middle States Commission, stressing that Columbia's actions violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Federal law requires accreditors to notify member institutions of such violations and implement a plan to restore compliance. 'If a university fails to come into compliance within a specified period, an accreditor must take appropriate action against its member institution,' the department stated. 'Accreditors have an enormous public responsibility as gatekeepers of federal student aid. They determine which institutions are eligible for federal student loans and Pell Grants. Just as the Department of Education has an obligation to uphold federal antidiscrimination law, university accreditors have an obligation to ensure member institutions abide by their standards,' she said. Columbia already lost $400 million in federal grants and contracts earlier this year, prompting layoffs of nearly 180 staff. The potential loss of accreditation could have far-reaching impacts, particularly for students who rely on federal aid. According to Columbia's website, 21% of undergraduates at Columbia College and Columbia Engineering receive Pell Grants. Trump escalating his confrontation with Harvard University on May 29 accused the institution of disrespecting the country and singling it out as a hotbed of antisemitism linked to anti-Israel protests. But, Trump praised Columbia University for being cooperative, despite also calling it 'very, very bad.' 'Harvard has to understand the last thing I want to do is hurt them. They're hurting themselves. They're fighting,' Trump said. 'Columbia has been very, very bad — what they've done, they're very antisemitic and lots of other things — but they're working with us on finding a solution.'
Mint
32 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump administration signals it will slash funds for long-delayed California high-speed rail project
LOS ANGELES — The Trump administration signaled Wednesday that it intends to cut off federal funding for a long-delayed California high-speed rail project plagued by multibillion-dollar cost overruns, following the release of a scathing federal report that concluded there is 'no viable path' to complete even a partial section of the line. Voters first authorized $10 billion in borrowed funds in 2008 to cover about a third of the estimated cost, with a promise the train would be up and running by 2020. Five years beyond that deadline, no tracks have been laid and its estimated price tag has ballooned to over $100 billion. In a letter to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, which oversees the project, Federal Railroad Administration acting Administrator Drew Feeley wrote that what was envisioned as an 800-mile system connecting the state's major cities has been reduced to a blueprint for 'a 119-mile track to nowhere.' After a $4 billion federal investment, the California agency 'has conned the taxpayer ... with no viable plan to deliver even that partial segment on time,' Feeley wrote. State officials defended what's known as the nation's largest infrastructure project and said they remain committed to construction, though it's not clear what funding would replace the federal support if it's withdrawn. Feeley noted the FRA could seek repayment of the federal funds but is not proposing to claw back those dollars at this time. Carol Dahmen, the state authority's chief of strategic communications, said in a statement that the federal conclusions are misguided and 'do not reflect the substantial progress made to deliver high-speed rail in California.' Dahmen noted that the majority of the funding for the line has been provided by the state and that Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's budget proposal would extend at least $1 billion a year for 20 years to complete an initial segment of the line. State officials are focused on a stretch connecting the Central Valley cities of Bakersfield and Merced, which is set to be operating by 2033. The state agency has about a month to formally respond to the FRA, after which the grants could be terminated. State Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican from Huntington Beach who is vice chair of the Transportation Committee, said that 'commonsense has prevailed" and urged the Legislature's dominant Democrats to redirect the funds from the rail line to lowering gas prices or investing in viable construction projects. 'Let's stop wasting California's hard-earned taxpayer dollars,' Strickland said. There is no known source for the billions of dollars that would be needed to complete the line. California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Ian Choudri suggested in April that private investors could step in and fill the funding gap for the project that promised nonstop rail service between San Francisco and Los Angeles in under three hours. At the time, he acknowledged that even if funding is secured, it might take nearly two more decades to complete most of that segment. President Donald Trump said in May that his administration will not continue to fund the line. 'That train is the worst cost overrun I've ever seen,' Trump told reporters at the time, calling it "totally out of control.' This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
